Re: GPIO bindings guidelines (Was: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] gpio: Support for unified device properties interface)

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> 
> It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
> can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.
> 
> This patch series handles it so that:
> 
>   1) If we can't find given property (e.g "reset-gpios" or
>      "shutdown-gpios") the index above will refer directly to the GPIO
>      resource returned from _CRS.
> 
>   2) If the property is found we ignore index and take it from the
>      property instead.
> 
> This has the drawback that we cannot support this:
> 
>         Package () { "reset-gpios", Package () { ^GPIO, 0, 0, 0, ^GPIO, 1, 0, 0}}
>                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So the second entry in the above is not accessible using
> gpiod_get_index() and the reason is that we want to support the existing
> and new ACPI tables where _DSD is not being used.

So this is not using the DT binding but does thing slightly differently then.
In this case (supporting two incompatible bindings for DT and ACPI), I think
the only sensible driver implementation would be to know what we are asking
for and use different devm_gpiod_get_index statements based on the firmware
interface.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/